Share this story

Further Reading

In a new court filing submitted last week, federal prosecutors said that a criminal defendant accused of attempting to extort Facebook itself has now been arrested in Ecuador.

That man, Paul Ceglia, has been a fugitive since 2015. At that time, he cut off his ankle monitor and fled with his wife, kids, and dog. The American government is now trying to extradite Ceglia.

"The judge’s resolution indicates that the extradition process continues and that he is still detained," Ceglia’s Ecuadorian lawyer Roberto Calderon told Reuters by telephone on Tuesday. "I think the process will last 45 days."

Calderon claimed that the extradition treaty between the two countries does not cover the alleged crime that Ceglia committed—mail fraud and wire fraud related to his apparent forging of documents.

As Ars has reported previously, Ceglia claimed in a 2010 lawsuit that Mark Zuckerberg promised him half of Facebook when Zuckerberg was an 18-year-old Harvard University student. Ceglia soon sued Zuckerberg and Facebook. That lawsuit has since been dismissed.

Since 2012, Ceglia has been charged criminally with accusations that his lawsuit was a fraud. He has pleaded not guilty. The charges carry a maximum 40-year prison term.

Share this story

Cyrus Farivar
Cyrus is a Senior Tech Policy Reporter at Ars Technica, and is also a radio producer and author. His latest book, Habeas Data, about the legal cases over the last 50 years that have had an outsized impact on surveillance and privacy law in America, is out now from Melville House. He is based in Oakland, California. Emailcyrus.farivar@arstechnica.com//Twitter@cfarivar

Knowing what we know about Zuckerberg I do not find it inconceivable that he made verbal deals early on that he completely reneged on.That he is a world class sleaze is beyond doubt so....

I guess you missed the beginning of this story: The supposed deal was not verbal; it was based upon a written contract. Zuckerberg claimed in court (successfully) that the contract was a forgery. (Reference)

Knowing what we know about Zuckerberg I do not find it inconceivable that he made verbal deals early on that he completely reneged on.That he is a world class sleaze is beyond doubt so....

You don't have to be a world class sleaze to do that. You just have to be 18 years old.

I mean, it's quite possible he said something to that effect, because he never expected facebook to end up where it did. May be half jokingly. I would not judge Mark for not standing by those promises. I am personally not looking forward to having to follow through on deals drunk 18 year old me might have made that I don't even remember at this point.

Anyone else bothered by this? You lie to the court, and potentially spent more time incarcerated than for crimes that involve taking a life?

Committing fraud upon the court is an egregious assault on the rule of law, and it is conduct that by its nature must be calculated and premeditated. There is no justification or rationalization possible, no crime of passion or moment of fear -- you are actively attempting to tear down the mechanism that attempts to safeguard the public at large. Not just the imperfect one we have in real life, but even the idea that we could have this fair arbiter. It strikes at the foundation by subverting fact and truth. The criminal justice system has a very dim view of this conduct, I think quite fairly.

Anyone else bothered by this? You lie to the court, and potentially spent more time incarcerated than for crimes that involve taking a life?

Committing fraud upon the court is an egregious assault on the rule of law, and it is conduct that by its nature must be calculated and premeditated. There is no justification or rationalization possible, no crime of passion or moment of fear -- you are actively attempting to tear down the mechanism that attempts to safeguard the public at large. Not just the imperfect one we have in real life, but even the idea that we could have this fair arbiter. It strikes at the foundation by subverting fact and truth. The criminal justice system has a very dim view of this conduct, I think quite fairly.

So actually, no, I'm not bothered by this.

So of course all of the law enforcement that defrauded the courts claiming that the information came from a confidential witness as opposed to a stinger device? 40 years you say?

Anyone else bothered by this? You lie to the court, and potentially spent more time incarcerated than for crimes that involve taking a life?

Committing fraud upon the court is an egregious assault on the rule of law, and it is conduct that by its nature must be calculated and premeditated. There is no justification or rationalization possible, no crime of passion or moment of fear -- you are actively attempting to tear down the mechanism that attempts to safeguard the public at large. Not just the imperfect one we have in real life, but even the idea that we could have this fair arbiter. It strikes at the foundation by subverting fact and truth. The criminal justice system has a very dim view of this conduct, I think quite fairly.

So actually, no, I'm not bothered by this.

So of course all of the law enforcement that defrauded the courts claiming that the information came from a confidential witness as opposed to a stinger device? 40 years you say?

EditIt basically goes into why a case that was reported as having a max sentence of more than 67 years will actually result in, at worst, 24 months

So they can scare people they don't like into killing themselves instead wasting time on a pesky trial?

I, what, suicide? Dude, I’m just saying the press gets sentencing guidelines way wrong. It’s complex, but not that complex, I’ve got little better than a high school education but I was able to figure it out when I first read the article.

Anyone else bothered by this? You lie to the court, and potentially spent more time incarcerated than for crimes that involve taking a life?

Committing fraud upon the court is an egregious assault on the rule of law, and it is conduct that by its nature must be calculated and premeditated. There is no justification or rationalization possible, no crime of passion or moment of fear -- you are actively attempting to tear down the mechanism that attempts to safeguard the public at large. Not just the imperfect one we have in real life, but even the idea that we could have this fair arbiter. It strikes at the foundation by subverting fact and truth. The criminal justice system has a very dim view of this conduct, I think quite fairly.

So actually, no, I'm not bothered by this.

I'd be okay with it if this was applied equally to law enforcement and prosecuting attorneys who commit fraud to get convictions.

I dislike Zuckerberg, greatly. I’m not going to let that color my opinion of this though, as it has nothing to do with that. Right is right and wrong is wrong. With the very little facts I have on this, he sounds like a scammer that needs to be brought to justice. If there’s not enough evidence (unlikely I’m thinking since he cut his bracelet and ran), them he goes free. If convicted and locked up, one less scammer on the streets taking advantage of who knows who, next.I hope the dog is ok though.

EditIt basically goes into why a case that was reported as having a max sentence of more than 67 years will actually result in, at worst, 24 months

So they can scare people they don't like into killing themselves instead wasting time on a pesky trial?

I, what, suicide? Dude, I’m just saying the press gets sentencing guidelines way wrong. It’s complex, but not that complex, I’ve got little better than a high school education but I was able to figure it out when I first read the article.

Anyone else bothered by this? You lie to the court, and potentially spent more time incarcerated than for crimes that involve taking a life?

The maximum penalty for crimes involving taking a life is death.

He was prosecuted in New York?

Capital punishment is not in force in the State of New York. So the maximum penalty for taking a life in New York is life in prison.

Quote:

After the 2004 New York Court of Appeals decision in People v. LaValle, which found that the capital punishment statute violated the state's constitution, New York has not practiced the death penalty. It was formally abolished in 2007, with the last remaining death sentences converted to life imprisonment

Anyone else bothered by this? You lie to the court, and potentially spent more time incarcerated than for crimes that involve taking a life?

Not sure how it works in US courts, but here Perjury usually has a very broad spectrum of possibilities regarding sentencing, with a whole boatload of caselaw and legislation behind it to make sure its appropriate. The reason being its a charge that covers anywhere between s relatively pedestrian lie in court to avoid a parking ticket to framing a dude up for a murder you yourself had committed. The idea being the judge will chose a sentence considered historically and legally fit for the particular circumstance of the crime.

This guy isn't going to get 40, but he might get maybe a tenner on account of it being fraudulent (ie to screw someone out of their cash).

On the other hand the US IS notorious for absurd nonsense sentencing (A dangerous state of affairs in the last western nation left to still have a death penalty)

Ceglia in a court hearing on Saturday said he did not want to be extradited, arguing his life was at risk.

I'm curious about that argument and who he claims will kill him.

It could be Zuckerberg. Just look at how dangerous Zuck has been to the people of the United States. The man has almost singlehandedly destroyed democracy.

Even if Facebook has plenty of faults of its own this is a ridiculous statement. Even if you think that 1. fake news and clickbait stories are the main reason for this and2. Facebook was the only platform that allowed them to be spread

Knowing what we know about Zuckerberg I do not find it inconceivable that he made verbal deals early on that he completely reneged on.That he is a world class sleaze is beyond doubt so....

You don't have to be a world class sleaze to do that. You just have to be 18 years old.

I mean, it's quite possible he said something to that effect, because he never expected facebook to end up where it did. May be half jokingly. I would not judge Mark for not standing by those promises. I am personally not looking forward to having to follow through on deals drunk 18 year old me might have made that I don't even remember at this point.

While I sympathize with the sentiment, a deal is a deal. Verbal, written or otherwise expressed. (e.g. if you go into a store put a pack of gum on the counter, the guy selling you it rings up the price and you pay him accordingly you can manage to complete a sales contract without having spoken a word)

Especially if you are 18 and now considered an adult, you should be very aware and act accordingly. Mostly because you don't own much as an 18 year old or lack a proven track record, no one really pays attention to such things. But if there literally billions riding on a verbal contract, you can be sure that no one would say "oh well, he was only 18" and the law certainly wouldn't see it that way either.

The problem with verbal contracts is proving them. It will be interesting to see how that impacts society with recording devices having become ubiquitous and people recording more.